Yes there are no Authoritarian Conservatives.
I think that’s a given. I don’t think anybody is arguing that we do.
a lot of Republican are arguing that as they get banned from Twitter, Facebook for hate speech.
Right, No True ConScotsman.
And no democrats. So what does that tell you? They can selectively enforce rules if they choose. And we can call them on it if we choose.
In your rush to disagree you misunderstood the point I was making. You are agreeing with me that the Little Sisters viewed speech as equivalent to action, which then puts you firmly on the side of those leftists who would ban hate speech. Are you sure that’s what you believe in?
All speech (barring specific things like incitement to violence and such) is protected.
One can say all of the terrible things that come to mind every day, all day.
That does not make them immune from social, personal, or business consequences from doing such things.
Hope that that helps.
Glad we could agree.
There are true Scotsmen, they don’t come from Nazi Germany. They come from Scotland.
The core principle of conservatism is individual freedom from.
How so. I showed you a UNANIMOIUS SCOTUS from 2014 in which telling complete falsehoods about politicians is allowed.
Show me even one SCOTUS opinion showing some mo against.
I showed you mine. Show me the non existent SCOTUS opinion against the first.
Lol. Which is why the right bans books (see your Texas)
all these great libertarians.
And the ones who would not show a cartoon in Alabama.
Your confusion is the SCOTUS. There was a time when there was no momentum for turning a penalty into a tax, recognition of homosexual unions or ignoring immigration laws. SCOTUS and The Living Constitution is a lagging indicator.
Schenck v. United States , 249 U.S. 47 (1919)
Your favorite “yelling fire” case. It was eventually rejected, but it took a while. 59 years.
The whole point of the first amendment is to protect speech that is unpopular or controversial. The colonials’ call for representation in Parliament was a very controversial move and the British reacted to it very poorly by deciding to violate their rights as Englishmen. That’s why the 1st exist, to protect speech that society at large deems unpopular or immoral.
SCOTUS is never confused. It doesn’t lag. It’s opinions are cutting edge.
You weren’t going for clever? Shame.
Let’s talk some more about wrongspeak.
You left out an important part of the 1st Amendment, it’s to prevent government interference with speech. Not private interference with speech. There are no first amendment rights to free speech here on a message board.
The op has a right to be worried, the 1st amendment should be protected at all costs and both sides should shun the groups in their party who think otherwise.
“Free speech is the whole thing, the whole ball game.”